Arrowman

Just a little thought on the age-old argument about the "God-less" US Constitution and Church-State Separation. Not earth-shattering, but....

The US Constitution, as we know, does not mention "God" although the Declaration of Independence does mention a "Creator". The Australian Constitution, on the other hand
a. Mentions God in the preamble - something along the lines of "We, the people of Australia, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God" or somesuch - and
b. Contains almost exactly the same words as the US Constitution (no religious test, plus the First Amendment) in relation to CSS. Clearly the authors decided that was a good idea so they borrowed it!

Now, to me this raises the questions:
1. Does this weaken the Australian Constitution in relation to CSS? and
2. If the US Constitution mentioned the word "God" in a similar context, would it actually make any difference?

I think the answer to both of these is "No" for the following reason: The attitude of the authors of the Australian Constitution could be expressed as follows:

"We, the authors of this Constitution, believe in God. Invoking God's blessing comes as naturally to us as breathing. It is almost a reflex action in writing documents such as this. It is a ceremonial invocation. Come to think of it, we suppose we should have paid more attention to detail, as our colleagues in the US did. Sorry about that - no need to feel like you don't belong or anything."

I know that's putting words in the mouths of the long-dead, but on the other hand I think it's a very fair and plausible assertion. Certainly much more plausible than "we really meant that this country was to be a Christian theocracy but we haven't bothered to actually say that in the Constitution."

In short:
- Australians do not have a weaker case than US citizens in defending CSS.
- You'd have to do a lot better than mention God in the Constitution, or even invoke the Declaration of Independence, to support the argument that the founders intended the US to be a Christian country. The intention would have to be explicitly stated. Mere recitation of a ceremonial invocation does not suffice.

Like I said, small point but another string to the bow, perhaps.

I won't be posting further for a while - taking an "IIDB holiday" - but I'll be interested to read the thoughts of others.

Buffman

Arrowman

- Australians do not have a weaker case than US citizens in defending CSS.

Yours is a subjective opinion based on objective analysis. Most religionists care very little about objective analyses. Does or doesn't your constitution say "humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God?" Does or doesn't your constitution acknowledge the existence of an "Almighty God?" Should or shouldn't every Australian citizen seek the blessings of that "Almighty God?" So, who decides how every Australian should go about seeking those blessings?

Here's an idea! Why don't you have a national referendum on creating a 1% tax on all personal income, the receipts of which to be used to build, maintain and staff an Amighty God Blessings Cathederal, open to every member of the public, regardless of individual religious or non-religious faith belief, as a specific place to go and plead for those blessings? A simple majority of the votes cast will determine the outcome of the referendum. --- It could become the Australian Mecca. A place for teachers to bring their school classes to visit. A place that one day could even be written into law as the mandatory place to come for all weddings in order for the union to be certified as legal by the government. Eventually, an individual seeking citizenship would have to bring proof of having visited the Blessings Cathederal first. Naturally your courts would point to your Constitution that was the founding document for these laws thus making them constitutionally enforceable. Just think of what a great tourist draw it could be...especially if you owned the concession rights or a shop close by.

- You'd have to do a lot better than mention God in the Constitution, or even invoke the Declaration of Independence, to support the argument that the founders intended the US to be a Christian country. The intention would have to be explicitly stated. Mere recitation of a ceremonial invocation does not suffice.

I am not quite sure I understand what you are saying in the above paragraph. To whose constitution do you refer. Ours or yours? If it is ours, that is what the C-S separationists have been claiming all along. If it was the intent of the American Founding/Framing Fathers to create a Christian Nation, there was absolutely nothing standing in their way to prevent them from doing so. Therefore, the very fact that even though they all believed in a monotheistic God, and that there was nearly a unanimous profession of Christian fidelity among them, they made no mention whatsoever in the basic text of the U.S. Constitution about God, Jesus, Christ or Christianity...much to the outrage of many Christian extremists... then and today.

However, if it is your Constitution, I have no way of knowing how your current politicians and citizenry would vote to amend your Constitution by eliminating that phrase...before it can be used against minority beliefs. (I know that my politicians and the majority of our citizenry won't even take "under God" out of our current Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)

never been there

We're in a similar position in Canada. One Prime Minister put "God" in the consitution and another put "God" in our national anthem (which in the English-language version had managed very well without it). In both cases it got a bunch of small-c conservative MPs to mellow out over things going very much against their views in general.

I'm still pissed about the national anthem. The French-language words are religious, but they have historical relevance rather than being a modern sop to the wankers.

All in all, however, things here are better for decent believers and decent non-believers. Christians don't have to fear being pushed into the 'right' way to be a believer as the public arena is secular at heart. We let the odd public prayer go, in our culture that sort of thing is less of a threat when you just roll eyes at it.

Shake

Not really, but some of those who feel that the US is an Xian nation will point out the fact that it does say, "...the year of our Lord..." at one point. They then use this (albeit very shaky footing) to rest their Xian principles argument on.

If they want to stick to that silly response, I say we get it changed to read, "...this year of the Common Era"!